it is a fair and good question. we have been looking at our parking control for a while now. recently, as i mentioned, we made a management change in the area. we recently had the benefit of some resources from the comptroller's office to look at how we manage our parking control officers and enforcement unit. that has been getting us to the conclusions that we got to in this revised budget. it did coincide and it was not a coincidence that it coincided with our need to close a gap. what is driving it is our needs to be able to enforce across the city. we hear, including through your office, concerns of adequate enforcement on residential permit parking areas. people pay for these permits and then they see we are not

enforcing them. we get complaints about blocked driveways. we feel we have not have the resources to address them. it would have been better, had we had this work done an analysis complete and advance of our bringing the budget for the first time. we did not, but we took the opportunity to rebalance the budget, to bring these things together. no question, it helps to close the revenue gap, but most importantly, it will help us better manage the parking regulation that we are required to enforce. i do want to add, what we are not proposing here are any extended hours or higher rates. this is just about having the resources to enforce the regulations that are on the books. supervisor wiener: i think a lot of people support improved

parking management. i raised this before when you came, around extended parking meters -- two things. first, in terms of parking management, it is important that we improve the meter situation, in terms of getting them all updated so that they accept credit cards, that sf park is integrated into these. i know that timing is chunky, in terms of implementation. you do not have everything perfectly at one time, but there is something a little bit off about increasing parking management, increasing enforcement, without already having rolled out the modernized parking meters. people still have to carry bags of quarters around. in many areas, you cannot reload remotely. we are not making it easy for

people to pay their meter. ideally, parking would proceed with both problems. the other thing with the residential parking permit system, i think we do want to enforce that, at some of what we discussed last time. i personally think the president to parking program is just bad. it is not actually designed with parking management in mind. it is about a particular block about whether they want to be in or out of the system and then we have orphan blocks that are surrounded by residential parking zones that have nowhere to park because they only have their one block and if the spots are filled, probably with commuters, then they cannot park anywhere in their neighborhood because they are not even allowed to purchase a permit.

the system, in my view, should be completely revamped comic if we really want to do this to the management system. it is good if we are going to be ticketing people who are parking to commute, that is fine, but particular the people who are not in a zone and surrounded by zones, i more than they will be getting an enormous amount of tickets because they literally have nowhere else to park if they do not >> if i may, those are great points. generally, i would say we are ahead of the game technologically in a lot of places. within a year and a half, we should have new meters in place. we have a lot of them in place now. we have some technology available such as pay by phone with the meter itself altered. a lot of the enforcement is not in the metered areas.

to approve a residential parking permit, we do not have to wait for new leaders. one thing we have done well is make it easier for people to find and pay for parking. i do not think we want to be hesitant in enforcing the regulations because we are not fully modernized in that regard. in a lot of areas, we're far ahead. it is a point we're taking. we're trying to get the new meters out as quickly as possible. we've always rather get the money through the meter than through a ticket. we do not want to have to issue tickets. we want them to comply with parking regulations and feed the meter. we talked about rpp end yellowstone's last time. we are in the process of reviewing all of those other

parking management tools. we have drafted a clear set of rules that we have sent out. we are undergoing review. we will be taking a broader look at rpp to see if the voluntary system makes sense. i agree, i do not think it does. supervisor wiener: about the $4 million in tax revenue, is that all from anticipated increased enforcement? >> we have budgeted only about $5 million per year for the taxi revenues in the upcoming budget. when we look at the current fiscal year, we're already at about $10 million. there are two pieces of the revenue increase. one is that we underbudgeted.

i think five is lower than realistic. we are adding enforcement. we anticipate some level of revenues from that. that is much less direct revenue. it is much more difficult to predict. we're not anticipating a huge amount from that. more enforcement will hopefully improve taxi service and generate revenues. supervisor wiener: you may recall last year of petition came to the board that would have dramatically increased the fines. the board did not decline to do that. i have advocated not to do it. i think the only reason these uncommitted cabs exist is because of the system.

i want to commend you for moving forward and putting additional caps on the street. i want to make sure it stays on track. they exist only because we do not have enough cabs. >> hopefully we will have the medallion reform completed in august. we will have the necessity study that will inform the decision about the increase in taxicabs in the fall. those will be happening in the first half of the fiscal year as well as advances we're trying to make on centralized access. those are the key steps to improving taxi service. we want to make sure there are not folks out there operating and safely. we understand people driving without proper licenses in vehicles without proper inspections. we recognize they are filling a board with a boy.

i commend people for entrepreneurialism. -- we recognize there filling a void. i commend people for entrepreneurialism, but we want to make sure they're safe. supervisor wiener: i agree with the crackdown. thank you. supervisor chu: for all of these items as well as the additional revenues, does it require your board take additional action? are you able to make these changes on your own? >> it is the latter. we will be submitting to the mayor's budget office and controller a technical adjustment of the budget within the 5% latitude. that does not require board action. i did bring it to my board as an informational item. i have no concerns expressed by the board. supervisor chu: generally your board is permissive of you being able to change things so long as it does not exceed the 5%?

>> i cannot speak generally because i have not done this before with my board. i did bring this to the board. i walked through with more detail than i did today with the pluses and minuses were on the revenue and expenditure side. they were fine with that. i think it is beyond the legal obligation. they seemed comfortable with the rebalancing. to the extent there are significant changes, i will be reviewing budget expenditures and revenues monthly at a committee of the mta board and discussing any variances from the budget. supervisor chu: ok. any of the questions from colleagues? i want to thank you for your update. thank you.

the office of economic and worse -- workforce development. >> good morning. i am the director of the office of economic and workforce development. i come before you today prepared to talk about three items. we are in agreement with the budget analyst office as to all issues except for the proposed loan fund we discussed last week. we are in disagreement. we're hoping to receive the full $2 million in loan fund allocation for the next fiscal year and get approvals for the additional $2 million for the next year. on the materials being handed out and on the slide, i have a detailed breakdown of our

proposed spending. in 2011-2012, we have $500,000 for the revolving loan fund. there's another $500,000 on reserve which we propose to spend in the next fiscal year. as i mentioned last week, that is an amount we think is sufficient to provide loans to small businesses in the $5,000 to $50,000 range. we propose creating loans between $50,000.200 $50,000 -- $50,000 and $250,000. we propose it would create 30 new drops. with another charge of funds, we are proposing $500,000 in fiscal year 2012-2013. we would provide businesses

with loans and grants to do tenant improvements, ada compliance and improvements. we propose $1 million in order to unlock a reception 8 relief program. this is a federal program we have had access to, $23 million in loans that have a requirement to create jobs for low income members of the community to utilize these funds. we believe to be prudent in lending these amounts of money, they're fairly complicated plans to use. to create larger loans for things that could be -- one project we are in conversations with some months ago are with

the approved use hostile -- youth hostel on central market. we would work with outside loners. these are federal dollars attached. if they default, they have an adequate reserve. the vast majority of this would be with a loss reserve to make sure our cdbg funds are not hit if one of the section 8 loans were to go in default or have delayed payments. that is our initial proposal for how we would spend the fund. i do not want to speak for the budget analyst. they're making a different set of recommendations. this is the only area where we're not in agreement. i want to talk about investing in neighborhoods. in response to requests from supervisor avalos, i have prepared a brief breakdown of

how our budget is proposed to be enhanced. in the case of america's cup, it would be reduced with regard to fund allocations. i will take a break and see where you want to take this. i will pause, i mean. supervisor chu: to the budget analyst quickly in response to the revolving loan issue. >> the budget analyst wants to and the size this office is not against the small business revolving loan fund program at all. we are suggesting based on what has happened in the past and there are projections as to how much money it will be expanded, we state the reduction would still allow $2 million in funding for the revolving loan fund in 12-13.

we're suggesting to use -- we are suggesting you have your priorities. our projections would be all of this money will not be expanded this fiscal year. if that is correct, and i cannot say that with certainty, but if that is correct, that means to be leaving money in this department's budget. you may have other priorities to use it. if the department could demonstrate, if you were to make this cut and to demonstrate they needed additional funds, they could always come back to the committee for a supplemental from the general fund reserve. we do not want it to happen, but the committee would have use of the funds. if the department demonstrated a need, they could come back at a later time. supervisor chu: thank you. any questions on the revolving

loan fund? supervisor kim. supervisor kim: last week became for with that of the $500,000 we did allocate to the revolving fund, none of those dollars have been expended. we can pull them over to 2012- 2013, right? >> the $500,000 has not been expended. there is $380,000 in small- business loans that have been preapproved by working solutions that are in the queue. we have had administrative problems getting it to them. when that goes out, it will leave $120,000. supervisor kim: i remember working solutions had a fund balance. there's the 500,000 old rear granting them. one of the policy considerations was was that working solutions already had a fund balance it was not able to expand.

the question is whether they can expand $1 million over the next year given the heavy fund balance already. the $300,000 could come out of their existing fund balance prior to our $1 million allocation. >> i do not remember what the balance was. i can find out and report back later in the day. i understand was the balance rotated again in the last couple months and the 380 would be directly coming out of the 500 allocated in march. supervisor kim: i appreciate the breakdown. i see they are going to different types of loans for small businesses. being that this is somewhat of an emerging or new area for our city to be involved in, why is it we want to allocate the most amount of money in the next fiscal year bursa's the following fiscal year reverses -- fiscal year versus the following fiscal year after we

have had a time to test it out? >> i think we chose -- it is a good question. i think we chose these amounts $500,000 because it was an amount we thought we could get out the door in the next fiscal year based on the need we have seen in talking to businesses. if you have a loan fund that is $50,000 to $250,000, it could be eight to 15 months. it is not that many loans to process in the year. we see a need. with the sf shines and tenant improvements, those are smaller loans but it is amateur program -- a mature program. we have the infrastructure for that program. we have a partner, a community-

based partner. we know how to move those dollars. we know how to get those projects permitted and built. we feel like there will be a larger number of them. we do have the infrastructure there. with regard to section 108, that is a large chunk of the money we are proposing. the vast majority will not be spent. it is a loan-loss reserve to unlock the $23 million. it is not prudent to put these out without having a loan-loss reserve to make sure our cdbg funds are not put in jeopardy. it is a conservative amount. one thing we discussed, i am not sure this money needs to sit in our budget. it may be able to sit on reserve and could be called upon when we issue the loans to have it set

as a loan-loss reserve for a particular loan rather than having it money that sits in our budget prior to making loans. we have had interest in this program before. because we have not had a reserve, we have had other sources of money. we have not made large loans, but we see opportunities in the next year of important projects that could use this money. supervisor chu: thank you. this is loans in the range of $50,000 to $250,000. can you explain the need? in your analysis, was there something in this area we thought was a hole in terms of the lending options for businesses? >> we see there are several micro lenders in san francisco that do a good job of lending a

few thousand dollars up to $50,000, often for new businesses to get started. but when you have an existing business looking to do a round of improvements or expansion, it can be harder to find that loan product from a commercial lender, especially if you are still a new business without showing large amounts of revenue. we wanted to work with -- we would not be lending directly. we would do anrfp and work with a community lender for folks graduating out of the type of business loan you do when you are starting a business. we have seen tenant improvements, new equipment, inventory, and expansion are the main categories for loans of this size. supervisor chu: ok, thank you.

any of the questions on the revolving loan fund? if not, go forward with information about the neighborhood initiative. explain what is in the budget for this area. >> sure. i have -- i wanted to provide more information on the background of what invest in neighborhoods is and begin to create an understandable narrative about the initiative. we're trying to marshal existing city resources but use them in a different way. we want to say to the neighborhoods we're choosing that every neighborhood receives baseline services from the city better known today. stakeholders. they are made aware of these are available any systematic way. all of the neighborhoods issue

assessments. those will look at demographics, physical conditions, and the need for support from nonprofit partners and ongoing funding. from understanding the baseline services and quarter assessments, services will be designed for that particular neighborhood. to the extent they need funding, there will be operational support and grants. we created a toolkit. the first thing we did was figure out baseline services. as you can see in this handout and on the overhead -- i am sorry. i do not have a slide for this. we read able to catalog all of the city services that could possibly be used in a commercial corridor.

that was illustrative to the city family to better understand. the puc has dollars for waste- water treatment. that can be used for street beautification as long as you know who will take care of the improvements when they're implemented. when you have intra-department of conversations about programs, use your resources are being used more strategically. this baseline assessment is a tool we will be giving to stakeholders and partners in corridors so they know what is available. from there, we will be doing corridor assessment. i have prepared an outline of what these look like in terms of elements. you need to do an economic and

business analysis. you need to do demographic analysis. you need to understand planning and land-use analysis. look at this neighborhood institutions. libraries, banks, schools, parks. what are the things which can be utilizing to make a stronger and healthier neighborhood? after you do the assessment, if you start thinking about customized services and the tools we have above a base line service that can be deployed. they cannot go into every neighborhood but it could be a specific vacancy, public art, greening projects, seeing if those neighborhoods can qualify for other programs. we figure out the holes we want to target. some of the money proposed in

the budget is not yet targeted to particular neighborhoods. after you go through the paces, you have hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant money that can be deployed in a strategic way. i will pause and see if you have questions. supervisor chu: i am looking at the documents you have provided. you show a summary of different economic investments. you talk about the work force development component as well. with regards to the small business revolving loan fund, we have talked about that. the cruise ship terminal. can you explain what they represent? >> this is in response to an inquiry from supervisor avalos wanting to have a high understanding of how the budget is proposed to be increased in terms of general and non-general fund expenditures. this shows increases in general funds across the department

divided between economic development and workforce development. $4.9 million proposed increase ship terminal funds. those are one time funds placed in the budget because of our long-term relationship with the port. the small business loan fund -- this is only a summary for next fiscal year. this is not a two-your summary. this is the $2 million proposed for next year. i have more of a breakdown. there is dollars and 2.7 million in economic development proposed -- there is $2.7 million in economic development proposed with an additional hundred 50,000 of -- $150,000 for the workforce side and another million dollars for jri. it shows a decrease in america's cup because the proposed budget was $12 million this year.

with the $10 million for next year, that is authorization to spend the money coming from the organizing committee. there is $150,000 for warriors, $125,000 for other development. that would be funds we would not expand until we had a written agreement with developers to reimburse us. you can see the other proposed budgetary-spending on the workforce side, which is largely federal grants. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: thank you for providing the breakdown. it was to see whether have been enhancements to the budget. to drill down further,